This essay--a dissection of the ongoing PLA purge--is one of the best pieces of a "Pekingology" I have ever read. Well argued, well written, complete command of the biographies of the Chinese elite married to a solid and clear eyed analytic framework.
Next time somebody asks me "what does a good analyses of Chinese political fights look like?" I will send them this piece. Gold standard for how this should be done.
Important brief from @Arranjnh for @ChinaBriefJT on the relationship between military power and the "new quality productive forces" that Xi Jinping has staked the future of the Chinese economy on.
If you have followed anything said by Chinese leaders since about 2020, you know that China has embarked on a grand quest to dominate 21st century science and technology. I wrote about that here: scholars-stage.org/saving-china-t…
The key idea here: a China that pioneers new technological frontiers and dominates high-industry manufacturing will grow itself out of its current economic problems and place itself at the center of the global economy for decades.
I do not think China hawkery vs dovery is that well correlated with having lived in China.
I do think it is correlated with career inside China. Journalists who have lived in China are generally far more hawkish than academics who did, for example. It is not an accident that both Pottinger and Garnaut worked as China correspondents before they went into government.
If you have never been to China but your area of policy expertise is climate, you are probably pretty dovish on China. If you have never been to China but your area of policy expertise is military affairs, you are probably hawkish on China.
This makes sense in a way. If you have spent your career closely tracking the PLA's naval advances by looking at satellite photography and financial statements of Chinese naval firms, and have served as a sailor yourself, it would be very hard to not be a hawk, frankly.
The other problem with Angelica’s post is that she has the causality reversed: thr Taiwanese nationalist movement did not form because foreigners created a historical narrative to justify it—foreigners took cues from TW nationalists not the other way around!
(This is also true for many bearish takes on China’s economy and politics: many ideas start with *Chinese* critics of the existing situation, get parlayed to their western friends in journalism/finance/think tank world, and then come to dominate the western debate about China).
There is this strange disbelief in Taiwanese agency in Angelica’s post: as if guys like Michael, who started as a blogger, could be responsible for the ideology of Taiwan’s largest political party!
Again, I just don't have time for people convinced of Chinese weakness. "bro they don't have a culture of innovation over there" sure, fine, but do we install nuclear at $2.50/W?
There are many bad things about China. So many. Could list them for days. Many sources of national weakness. Many real problems, problems that keep Xi up at night.
I don't have a lot of patience for people who try to portray China as some kind of wonderland.
But the gap between what the Chinese people are *currently* capable of doing and what so many in the west think of them is really atrocious. This is the most capable rival America has ever faced.